10


sor amendments and reservations to the treaties, particularly the incorporation of the October Statement of Understanding, and to share credit for the amendments.
 Once the Committee agreed with Senator Byrd's suggestion to merely recommend treaty changes to the Senate, it proceeded on January 27, 1978, to consider the various amendments, principally the amendments proposed by Senator Church to add the Statement of Understanding to the Neutrality Treaty in a f ormial way.',,
 Acting on advice from the State Department, the Committee at first voted 13-1 to add a new Article IX to the Neutrality Treaty which would contain the text of the Carter-Torrijos Statement. Later, after being informed that Panamanian officials feared that the addition of a new article might require a niew plebiscite in Panama, the Committee reconsidered its action and voted 13-1, on January 30, to recommend two amendments which would add the relevant portions of the Statement of Understanding to Articles IV and VI of the Neutrality Treaty.
 The Com-mittee then tabled all other proposed amendments, finding many of them moot since they also sought to incorporate the Statement into the treaties. The Committee did recommend four -understandings, two of which required the inclusion of Senate actions in the instruments of ratification of the Neutrality Treaty and the Panama Canal Treaty, respectively. The third understanding required that any prisoner transfer ag-reement between the United States and Panama be submitted as a treaty for the Senate's advice and consent, while the fourth understanding indicated that the prohibition against negotiation with third States to construct an interoceanic canal would not be construed as prohibiting discussion of such matters.
 After conceluding, action on recommendations, the Committee voted 14-i-, on January 30, with Senator Griffin opposing. to report a clean resolution of ratification for the Neuitrality Treaty. It then voted 14-i to approve a clean resolution of ratification for the Panama Canal Treaty, conditioning its approval of the later resolution on Senate approval of the prior resolution. It was in this form that the Cor-nmittee on Foreign Relations reported the treaties to the Senate for debate.'9
 Shortly thereafter, Majority Leader Byrd -and Minority Leader Baker cosponsored amendments to Article IV and VI of the Neuitrality Treaty identical to -those recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee. These so-called "leadership amendments," numbered 20 and 21, were eventually cosponsored by more than seventy senators before the debate'began on February 8, 1978.

 C TiIlE SIGNIFICANCE AND HITGHLIGHTS OF THE SENATE DEBATE
 The Senate debate on the Panama Canal treaties, running for over two months, from February 8 to Anril 18. 1978, was truly historic in a number of regards. To begin with, the Senate-reflecting the pub"I TId.
 19 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Panama Canal Treaties: Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations with Sunlemental and Minority iews On Execultive N. 95th Congress, 1st Session, The Treaity Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal and The Panama Canal Treaty. . 95th Congress. 2nd Session. Executive Report No. 95-12, February 3, 1978. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.